Kiss Bush's ***....get a promotion!!

[RightIsWrong]

I can't believe that this hasn't been posted yet.

Army Gen. David Petraeus, the four-star general who led troops in Iraq for the past year, will be nominated by President Bush to be the next commander of U.S. Central Command, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.

Gates said he expected Petraeus to make the shift in late summer or early fall. The Pentagon chief also announced that Bush will nominate Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno to replace Petraeus in Baghdad.

Central Command oversees the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

?I am honored to be nominated for this position and to have an opportunity to continue to serve with America?s soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen and civilians,? Petraeus said in a brief statement from Baghdad.

At a hastily arranged Pentagon news conference, Gates said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other problems in the Central Command area of responsibility, demand knowledge of how to fight counterinsurgencies as well as other unconventional conflicts.

?I don?t know anybody in the U.S. military better qualified to lead that effort,? he said, referring to Petraeus.

Democrats cautious
While congressional Republicans swiftly offered ringing endorsements of Petraeus? anticipated nomination, Democrats were more cautious. A spokeswoman for Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said only that the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee was ?hoping to schedule a prompt confirmation hearing.?

I'm not accusing him of not being qualified or having worked hard to get into this position. But it still reeks of brown-nosery that the only general that they could find to take over the Iraq gig, one that would give a report with his name on it written by the WH and someone that has shown unwavering support of the decisions made WRT Iraq is being promoted.

Thread title edited by Mod. Please read rules regarding profanity in thread titles.

T.I.A.

Fern
AnandTech P&N Moderator

 

[Genx87]

Well the guy got Bush to send more troops. Worked some magic with Al Sadr to settle him down. Brought the violence down bigtime. Guess I dont see the complaint. If the guy was a model of incompetence you would have a point. But he has actually got some things done over there where is predecessors could not and within the confines of a Bush lead war no less.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

I'm not accusing him of not being qualified or having worked hard to get into this position. But it still reeks of brown-nosery that the only general that they could find to take over the Iraq gig, one that would give a report with his name on it written by the WH and someone that has shown unwavering support of the decisions made WRT Iraq is being promoted.

Of course someone would have to believe your assumptions to come to that conclusion.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Well the guy got Bush to send more troops. Worked some magic with Al Sadr to settle him down. Brought the violence down bigtime. Guess I dont see the complaint. If the guy was a model of incompetence you would have a point. But he has actually got some things done over there where is predecessors could not and within the confines of a Bush lead war no less.

He did what he was told. The "surge" had always been Condoleeza Rice's idea (or one of her surrogates).

 

[Thump553]

Everything I've read about this guy persuades me that he is a unique leader who will take our military in a more effective direction. And he didn't screw the pooch on the surge (no small feat)-he did his part very ablely but (in my view) the politicians squandered much of what Petraeus accomplished.

Good promotion, hopefully whoever steps into his shoes in Iraq can handle it.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I can't believe that this hasn't been posted yet.

Army Gen. David Petraeus, the four-star general who led troops in Iraq for the past year, will be nominated by President Bush to be the next commander of U.S. Central Command, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.

Gates said he expected Petraeus to make the shift in late summer or early fall. The Pentagon chief also announced that Bush will nominate Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno to replace Petraeus in Baghdad.

Central Command oversees the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

?I am honored to be nominated for this position and to have an opportunity to continue to serve with America?s soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen and civilians,? Petraeus said in a brief statement from Baghdad.

At a hastily arranged Pentagon news conference, Gates said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other problems in the Central Command area of responsibility, demand knowledge of how to fight counterinsurgencies as well as other unconventional conflicts.

?I don?t know anybody in the U.S. military better qualified to lead that effort,? he said, referring to Petraeus.

Democrats cautious
While congressional Republicans swiftly offered ringing endorsements of Petraeus? anticipated nomination, Democrats were more cautious. A spokeswoman for Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said only that the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee was ?hoping to schedule a prompt confirmation hearing.?

I'm not accusing him of not being qualified or having worked hard to get into this position. But it still reeks of brown-nosery that the only general that they could find to take over the Iraq gig, one that would give a report with his name on it written by the WH and someone that has shown unwavering support of the decisions made WRT Iraq is being promoted.

Thread title edited by Mod. Please read rules regarding profanity in thread titles.

T.I.A.

Fern
AnandTech P&N Moderator

Petraeus is the first general to really stand up to this admin and tell tehm their so called strategy was horsesh!t. This is the best guy on the block and stands head and shoulders over teh piolitical generals who were too afraid to stand up to Rumsfeld early on when force levels and post war strategy was being discussed or ignored as teh latter was for too long.

So he is not and never will be your "brown-noser". Petraeus has more integrity than any one else in theater or out.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Thump553
Everything I've read about this guy persuades me that he is a unique leader who will take our military in a more effective direction. And he didn't screw the pooch on the surge (no small feat)-he did his part very ablely but (in my view) the politicians squandered much of what Petraeus accomplished.

Good promotion, hopefully whoever steps into his shoes in Iraq can handle it.

Correct. His performance during the second Gulf War was brilliant and his unit (101st Airborne) developed and implemented the tactics that are now so successful. He was at odds with several of his peers in the immediate aftermath over how to handle teh Iraqi's. He has been proven correct since.

 

[Lemon law]

I have nothing against Petraeus and he seems to be a cut above the idiots GWB&co. put in charge before. But I hardly think he is boy genius or aggressive enough to tell GWB&co
that their policies stink. Nor does Petraeus deserve much credit for the surge, when the ground work for the successes were laid long before he came.

And he may get his big promotion just in time to see Iraq go out of control if he can't rein in Maliki as Maliki is just bound and determined to keep stirring up hornets nests.

And in many ways, his promotion may be a moot point because GWB leaves office on 1/20/2009. And whoever becomes the next President may well want to select their own top command staffs giving Petraeus less than six months to enjoy the new office.`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I have nothing against Petraeus and he seems to be a cut above the idiots GWB&co. put in charge before. But I hardly think he is boy genius or aggressive enough to tell GWB&co
that their policies stink. Nor does Petraeus deserve much credit for the surge, when the ground work for the successes were laid long before he came.

And he may get his big promotion just in time to see Iraq go out of control if he can't rein in Maliki as Maliki is just bound and determined to keep stirring up hornets nests.

And in many ways, his promotion may be a moot point because GWB leaves office on 1/20/2009. And whoever becomes the next President may well want to select their own top command staffs giving Petraeus less than six months to enjoy the new office.`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

That's not how it works. These are not political appointments. Taking over a major command is generally a 1-3 year tour and Petraeus will stay there until the end of his tour, he is reappointed as Franks was, is given another assignment such as NATO commander or Army CoS, or retires.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Thump553
Everything I've read about this guy persuades me that he is a unique leader who will take our military in a more effective direction. And he didn't screw the pooch on the surge (no small feat)-he did his part very ablely but (in my view) the politicians squandered much of what Petraeus accomplished.

Good promotion, hopefully whoever steps into his shoes in Iraq can handle it.

Correct. His performance during the second Gulf War was brilliant and his unit (101st Airborne) developed and implemented the tactics that are now so successful. He was at odds with several of his peers in the immediate aftermath over how to handle teh Iraqi's. He has been proven correct since.

Another vote for "HE EARNED IT" Anyone in the Service has to do politicking if he wants to move up and/or survive. Some manage it, some don't.

 

[Lemon law]

I will concede that Petraeus is a good military leader and maybe even brilliant. But a military occupation is more of a political problem than a military one. And in our system of government, those political decisions are supposed to be made by the President.

Which exactly focuses on what the problem is, if you, like me, think our President is a complete and utter idiot.

The point is that Petraeus may be placed in somewhat of an impossible to solve problem. And is likely forced to implement policies he does not agree with.

But still, I cannot give Petraeus high marks for not doing more than he done in the past to overcome that handicap. Petraeus may have my sympathy but can't earn any backbone or integrity awards from me. That award would more go to Fallon, and we all see where it got Fallon.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Well the guy got Bush to send more troops. Worked some magic with Al Sadr to settle him down. Brought the violence down bigtime. Guess I dont see the complaint. If the guy was a model of incompetence you would have a point. But he has actually got some things done over there where is predecessors could not and within the confines of a Bush lead war no less.

Exactly. :thumbsup: I'd be proud to serve General P.

Let's see what any of you shmucks know about the current leadership in our armed forces...

If not Gen. P., then who would you suggest?

(This ought to be funny!)

 

[Sinsear]

Newsflash for all you nonmilitary people: the top ranks of the military is nearly all political. You don't find too many rogue Generals amongst the ranks, ever.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Newsflash for all you nonmilitary people: the top ranks of the military is nearly all political. You don't find too many rogue Generals amongst the ranks, ever.

True. That is why Falloon is out and Petraeus is in.

Let the 'good' times roll.

P.S. Petraeus main quality is that he is a brilliant bullshitter. Petraeus seems like a competent military man, but I lost all respect for him when he went on FOX and lied his arse off about the readiness of the Iraqi brigades back in 2005 I think it was.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Newsflash for all you nonmilitary people: the top ranks of the military is nearly all political. You don't find too many rogue Generals amongst the ranks, ever.

Which is very important to remember when preserving civilian control over the military.

It's a dangerous tendency to let generals be more than generals, such as the Bush administration's putting generals in the position of defending policy to congressional hearings.

I have no opinion, though, on this promotion. The pushing to the side of other leaders for the crime of being correct and at odds with the policy is a problem, though.

I'm not sure where to draw the line between zero accountability for generals' 'just following orders' and staying away from policy, and expecting them to voice their views on policy to challenge policies they see as bad. Richard Clarke said that one two-star general who was on track for big things quietly resigned in protest before the Iraq war. is that the right standard? I'm not sure. Like many issues, we probably have mixed feelings, resentful if we see the generals challenging policy when we disagree, and wanting them to do so when we agree.

I guess one standard I'd like is that Congress be a real filter, not a rubber stamp, and if they feel he's been derelict in his duty to be honest with Congress, etc., they can say no.

 

[Lemon law]

I have to somewhat disagree with GrGr. Fallon served as a rear guard voice of rationality in our armed forces. Subtly reminding GWB&co. that the military would drag its feet every step of the way before it would do stupid things. Fallon finally got smoked out and had to resign. But if there is ever a medal minted that honors military service restraint, I vote to award it to Fallon. If we get past 1/20/2009 without a GWB inspired bombing of Iran, a good part of that may be due to Fallon.

A corrupt leadership cannot corrupt a moral nation. And morality starts with each and everyone of us.

I also agree with Craig234, the other side of the coin is a general who brews up war. MacArthur may have been a military genius, but Truman was still right to fire him when
he over reached.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Well the guy got Bush to send more troops. Worked some magic with Al Sadr to settle him down. Brought the violence down bigtime. Guess I dont see the complaint. If the guy was a model of incompetence you would have a point. But he has actually got some things done over there where is predecessors could not and within the confines of a Bush lead war no less.

Ehhh, no, no and no.

Al-Sadr had declared a truce and the violence was on the decline before "the surge", it's fairly well known that the surge did little to nothing at all besides a better policing when that time could have been used for extended training, a stupid decision imo.

The guy is a model for failure to comprehend a situation and if you were to ask anyone who actually knows the situation he'll tell you that.

In fact, there isn't a military leader of any rank that can honestly say that the strategy, all strategies, from day one have been failures and that is because of the Admins refusal to listen to the military experts in not just one but all matters regarding this invasion and the occupation.

There is no way to "win" now, there just isn't, all the Iraq war does now is keeping troops busy so they won't go fighting in the WOT, you know, the one in Afghanistan where the Taliban are? Thank god for the French, without them sending more troops the Canadians would go and the US doesn't really give a fuck.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Newsflash for all you nonmilitary people: the top ranks of the military is nearly all political. You don't find too many rogue Generals amongst the ranks, ever.

True. That is why Falloon is out and Petraeus is in.

Let the 'good' times roll.

P.S. Petraeus main quality is that he is a brilliant bullshitter. Petraeus seems like a competent military man, but I lost all respect for him when he went on FOX and lied his arse off about the readiness of the Iraqi brigades back in 2005 I think it was.

Well at a certain point, when your next promotion is to a flag rank, you have to be appointed by the President. You have to keep moving up evey 4-5 years once you hit flag ranks or you are forced to retire.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Newsflash for all you nonmilitary people: the top ranks of the military is nearly all political. You don't find too many rogue Generals amongst the ranks, ever.

Well, that is true, but there are numerous people high up in the military ranks who have no problems telling the truth when asked directly, and the truth is that the Admin ran over them all with their itty bitty war policy that meant going in with less than 500k men, pretty much every military advisor said that they could NOT sustain peace with less than that, did anyone care? Nope.

In the case of an invasion of Iran, that number is well over thrice that amount and CREATING an enemy that is not there but will be there in case of an invasion, a bombing is enough to create enough troops to harm US interests around the world.

That is pretty much how these things go, it's always been this way and the "welcoming" is never going to be with roses and always with IED's and guns.

 

[Lemon law]

Only one slight disagreement with what JOS said, we had a general named Shinseki who voiced that 500k caution. Rummy promptly fired his ass. So we had someone who cared past tense.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Only one slight disagreement with what JOS said, we had a general named Shinseki who voiced that 500k caution. Rummy promptly fired his ass. So we had someone who cared past tense.

That was my point, read my post again, the Admin ran over him.

The answer is still the same thing, kill the enemy, and that can't be done with an itty bitty surge of 20k bored troops who spend more time in camp (like the rest do too, when they are not hurrying up to wait for a few weeks to do nothing in another place).

This war could have been planned and executed to be a success but there was a rush, the rush was there because if the inspections were allowed to continue and found nothing, there wouldn't be a reason to invade, any thinking human being understands that (that excludes Nebor, Pabster and the rest like them though).

Withdraw now, send troops to Afghanistan, let Iraq turn into what it is going to become WITH presence and bomb the fuck out of the camps.

That is my advice and YES i am selfish on this matter, we need support and we need it NOW, the Taliban are taking control over areas we don't have time to patrol because we're trying to keep the border.

 

[Lemon law]

A quick trip to yahoo news uncovered a few articles on what the Petraeus promotion may mean to the future of our military. Granted speculative, but the old line large set piece battles generals seem to be the losers here as Petraeus type thinking seems to be ascendant.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2...etVjRloyydhWDxEC6s0NUE

The one big joker in that deck may be what happens if Al Sadr gets tired of backing down and comes out swinging. Adverse US results may cook any Senate conformation of the Petraeus promotion scheduled some time between May to September.

Which may show our military leaders there are two ways to kill a career.

The opt for Honesty Shinseki way or the follow a foolish policy until the wheels falls off your command. Somehow the quote of a brave man dies but once and a coward dies a thousand deaths seems to spring to mind. With the added incentive of being featured in history books as a text book idiot.

 

[palehorse]

I'll ask again:

If not Gen. P., then who, from our current ranks, do the naysayers here suggest?

 

[Throckmorton]

As far as I know, Petraeus is a genius, and actually understands "asymmetric warfare".

 

[OrByte]

I can't kneejerk to this announcement.

AFAIK Petraeus has done an admirable job given the resources and energy he had at his disposal.

I hope he continues to positively contribute to these affairs.